prison rule in California

2024Although true, defendant was found guilty of a prison rule violation of battery with a deadly weapon, a definitionally violent offense. (§ 242 [“A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.”].) 12 Marriage of Diamond (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 595 , 602 [Where a statute requires a court to consider certain factors when rendering a decision, the court is not required to expressly address each factor unless the statute specifically so requires.]; People v. Nevill (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 198, 202 [sentencing court is presumed to have considered all relevant

2023Although true, defendant was found guilty of a prison rule violation of battery with a deadly weapon, a definitionally violent offense. (§ 242 [“A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.”].) 12 Marriage of Diamond (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 595 , 602 [Where a statute requires a court to consider certain factors when rendering a decision, the court is not required to expressly address each factor unless the statute specifically so requires.]; People v. Nevill (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 198, 202 [sentencing court is presumed to have considered all relevant

2021Code, § 11362.1, subd. (a)(1);1 People v. Perry (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 885, 888 (Perry).) In 2019, appellant Brian Joseph Ward pleaded guilty to felony possession of marijuana in a prison in violation of Penal Code section 4573.6, subdivision (a).

2021Code, § 11362.1, subd. (a)(1);1 People v. Perry (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 885, 888 (Perry).) In 2019, appellant David Cardenas pleaded no contest2 to felony possession of marijuana in a prison in violation of Penal Code section 4573.6, subdivision (a).3 At the sentencing hearing, appellant petitioned to dismiss this charge or reduce it to a misdemeanor, contending the offense had been decriminalized because he had possessed less than 28.5 grams of marijuana.

2022Such misconduct, combined with Rodriguez’s many other violations of prison rules and regulations, constituted “powerful evidence” of his “current willingness to engage in serious rule- breaking behavior” and is “probative of recidivist tendencies and the danger to public safety.” (People v. Strother, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 573; see In re Reed (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1085 [“petitioner’s inability to follow an express direction to comply with the rules of the institution” is evidence that, “when released, petitioner will be unable to follow society’s laws”].) Rodriguez argues he partic

2022Such misconduct, combined with Rodriguez’s many other violations of prison rules and regulations, constituted “powerful evidence” of his “current willingness to engage in serious rule- breaking behavior” and is “probative of recidivist tendencies and the danger to public safety.” (People v. Strother, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 573; see In re Reed (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1085 [“petitioner’s inability to follow an express direction to comply with the rules of the institution” is evidence that, “when released, petitioner will be unable to follow society’s laws”].) Rodriguez argues he partic

2008(See Hill , at p. 34 [describing "the freedom to pursue consensual familial relationships" as an "interest fundamental to personal autonomy"].) [32] The marriage statute enacted in California's first legislative session contained an explicit provision declaring that "[a]ll marriages of white persons with negroes or mulattoes are declared to be illegal and void." (Stats. 1850, ch. 140, § 3, p. 424.) [33] Similarly, in addressing under the federal Constitution the validity of a prison rule that permitted a prisoner to marry only if the superintendent of the prison found there were compelling rea

2008(See Hill , at p. 34 [describing "the freedom to pursue consensual familial relationships" as an "interest fundamental to personal autonomy"].) [32] The marriage statute enacted in California's first legislative session contained an explicit provision declaring that "[a]ll marriages of white persons with negroes or mulattoes are declared to be illegal and void." (Stats. 1850, ch. 140, § 3, p. 424.) [33] Similarly, in addressing under the federal Constitution the validity of a prison rule that permitted a prisoner to marry only if the superintendent of the prison found there were compelling rea

1946In 1941 (Stats. 1941, p. 1080), the provision for a hearing in the event of such a redetermina *86 tion was eliminated, and under section 3020 of the Penal Code the board had power to redetermine the length of time of imprisonment within the minimum and maximum terms in any case without notice or hearing. ’ ’ Also see In re Payton, 28 Cal.2d 194, 196 [ 169 P.2d 361 ].

1946In 1941 (Stats. 1941, p. 1080), the provision for a hearing in the event of such a redetermina *86 tion was eliminated, and under section 3020 of the Penal Code the board had power to redetermine the length of time of imprisonment within the minimum and maximum terms in any case without notice or hearing. ’ ’ Also see In re Payton, 28 Cal.2d 194, 196 [ 169 P.2d 361 ].